Boyfriend not getting enough time

Chrystee- Yes, there is definitely some jealousy that is part of the mix because he has watched my friend move in. I don't feel like I have the capacity to do more nights largely because of the other responsibilities I have going on (2 jobs, another partner, 2 dogs, friends, etc) and other things in life that are important to my health that sometimes I need time to myself for (sleep, solo time, exercise).

JaneQSmith- that's a good question. He and I are both extroverts. He is really respectful when I say I need time to MYSELF, but if I am taking time to myself to SCHEDULE as I see fit (which may or may not include J, my primary partner, or friends), he has historically struggled to respect whatever I do with my time. Does that make sense? He is really supportive of me taking time for solo self care, but is definitely challenged by me choosing to see other people when I could see him instead, and then feels de-prioritized.

Galagirl- thank you for continued wisdom and insight. I think we both feel like we're banging our heads against a wall, and just continuing to feel pained by it all. Your potential options that you end with are the two that I came up with myself yesterday.

We had a rough night together on Wednesday, during which time I think we both thought that we could just break up right then and there. We cried a lot together. We made an appointment with a couples therapist for Tuesday, and I think we are going to take space from each other until then. A couple of people have asked me what I hope to get out of the session, or what the goal is, and I am not entirely sure. I think my hope is simply to have someone with outside perspective listen to us describe the situation and potentially give us some feedback to help us gain some movement (either toward breaking up or finding some new things to try). I hope that it will be helpful for the two of us to hear feedback at the same time from someone.
 
Katja, a thought just occurred to me when I noticed the signature at the bottom of your posts...

...and that is, you only list your life partner, not your boyfriend. I understand you've been with your partner for much longer (11 years in all) than your bf (just over a year) but I am curious as to why this is.

I am assuming you intentionally practice hierarchical polyamory as you differentiate your life partner as "primary" and your boyfriend "secondary". Does this hold true only nsofar as commitment level, living arrangements and time goes? Or is it also true of the depth of feeling that exists for one over the other? Granted, "time spent" (either in years, or number of days or nights together) is not always an indication of emotional commitment or depth of feeling. However, names and labels can tell a story, and the fact that you refer to one of your lovers as your life partner/primary and the other as your boyfriend may indicate to your boyfriend that there is no hope he will ever move up the pecking order and progress to life partner status or co-primary.

If everyone is cool with these labels and set-up, and your bf has no expectation of ever gaining co-primary status, then all is hunky dory. However your bf clearly has an issue with the position he's been allotted in your life and priorties, and I am wondering if his exclusion from your signature reflects how you categorise him in terms of importance vs dispensability?
 
Last edited:
Hi Lunabunny, I think the question you ask is definitely relevant to the conflict with my boyfriend. I am theoretically open to having another life or primary partner, as is J. The ways in which hierarchy have shown up in our relationship, from my perspective, largely stem from our history and long-term goals together. Our families of origin are integrated, we share finances, we own a home together, we plan retirement together. I hold the possibility that similar historical and long-term plans may come to fruition with another partner, and I also am not looking for that kind of partnership with another person. I have found that it takes a specific kind of compatibility, beyond depth of feelings and love, for me to be interested in that with another person.

My boyfriend and I have done many of the things to be integrated into one another's lives: we've both met each other's families, we spend time with one another's friends, we've gone on trips together. My relationship with him has been deeply meaningful and important, and I don't ever think of him or our relationship as dispensable or replaceable. However, I think my boyfriend has felt secondary at times because, for example, I have traveled with J to see family, and he and I share a home together, and have responsibilities attached to that that keep me occupied in ways that I am not occupied with my boyfriend. I do think that he has held a vision of being a primary to me, and I have not had that same vision up to this point. It doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but it would take a long time of dating and similar compatibilities for me to want that with him.

My signature isn't updated largely because I haven't been on PF in 3-4 years :)
 
katja24 said:
I am theoretically open to having another life or primary partner, as is J. The ways in which hierarchy have shown up in our relationship, from my perspective, largely stem from our history and long-term goals together ... I have found that it takes a specific kind of compatibility, beyond depth of feelings and love, for me to be interested in that with another person.

I do think that he has held a vision of being a primary to me, and I have not had that same vision up to this point. It doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but it would take a long time of dating and similar compatibilities for me to want that with him.
Click to expand...

So, yes, you and your boyfriend not only have a mismatch when it comes to how you choose to spend your time on a week-to-week basis, but also in regards to long-term relationship goals.

As I think another member said, the fact that your best friend is not only dating, but also LIVES WITH you and your life partner, means that - regardless of how your polycule chooses to define it - there may be a perception that SHE has reached the status of co-primary "ahead" of your boyfriend, despite the fact that J has been dating her for a similar length of time to you/boyfriend.

That said, I DO believe there is some truth to your assertion that it may take more than "just" love, but also a certain kind of compatibility (i.e. compatible daily lifestyles + future goals) before one can seriously consider further integrating a lover into the fabric of one's daily life, which may include moving in together, combining finances, having children and more.

If you're not sure your boyfriend and you have reached that level, or you realise the way you each live your individual lives is markedly different or may never be compatible, you'd be wise to hold off trying to force further attempts at integrating your lives.

This does NOT necessarily mean that living together or the like are necessarily prerequisites for naming a lover as partner/primary/co-primary. If you love your boyfriend with the same fervour as you love your life partner, and consider his place in your heart and life to be vital and irreplaceable, then he may already be co-primary, emotionally speaking. (If that is the case, he may benefit from hearing it.) Plenty of poly people do not live with their OSO/co-primary.

My boyfriend and I have done many of the things to be integrated into one another's lives ... and I don't ever think of him or our relationship as dispensable or replaceable.

My signature isn't updated largely because I haven't been on PF in 3-4 years :)
Click to expand...

re: Signature: Ah, then that is understandable. (It wasn't meant as an accusation, btw.) I just wondered at his absence there, and if that meant this relationship may hold a lower priority in your life than even you are consciously aware.

It bodes well that this isn't the case. And I hope your counselling sessions pay dividends. I have currently started that process myself in recent weeks.
 
I feel lunabunny has a solid grasp on this one. I only want to chime in with some thoughts that occur.

Though I've never been a guy to demand lots of time with anyone, I can empathise with your boyfriend. He is, after all, monogamous, & Monogamism is packed full of "togetherness" stuff that undercuts security in being an individual. People are led to believe that "true love" brings two people closer together AND that being close increases love, pushing out doubt & insecurity & any need to change & grow.

I don't know if he's yet done so explicitly, but his demands are an implicit ultimatum with an either/or: spend more time with me, or we might as well end it now. He might not have faced up to that consciously. Make him aware of it.

An either/or choice has its place, almost always in major crises where a firm decision MUST be made, & quickly. Generally, though, the either/or is totally incompatible when used on people who are "let's meet in the middle" negotiators -- like, say, many polyfolk.

If you cave in to his expectations without firm negotiation, there's also the possibility of incrementalism. What makes me think of that: I was living with Sharon, who was also involved with my lover Nancy. Sharon began dating Dave (single, monogamous), & had casual relationships as well with two other girlfriends. (FWIW, I also had Anne, & spent a night or two a week at Nancy's.) She rarely slept alone, & then mostly because she wanted to. One day, Sharon announced that she intended to move in with Dave, largely because "we only have four nights a week together." :confused: I mean, NONE of the rest of us had more than two nights a week with anyone, & none of us felt neglected... but Dave had nothing but his job & a Friday-night D&D group. Nancy & I (oddly, no Dave) got her all packed up & watched her truck pull away, knowing we'd lost her to Monogamism. We knew Dave had been love-bombing her, but it never dawned on us she'd give up freedom of action in exchange for promises of security.

So, Katja, let's say you somehow make room & move your boyfriend in. Let's further posit that it turns out to be very harmonious, & the four of you find it to be a GREAT roommate situation.

But surely you know in your heart that this wouldn't satisfy him, even though you'd see each other much more in those little passing moments of daily life. He will still (at least for a while) be "less primary" than J, who from your accounting appears to be MUCH more aware of what goes on in your life. As you say, you have plenty of obligations -- J, two jobs, metamour friendship, dogs, neglected friendships, alone time -- so if your boyfriend lived with you, he'd get to WATCH you zoom past, taking care of what needs care.

I doubt he'd feel MORE secure than he does now.

That he falls to tactics of emotional blackmail ("I love you too much, I guess") is understandable -- many of us pick up such unfortunate tics -- but it's up to HIM to STOP once attention is called to the habit. Again, a clash of two worlds: polyamory invalidates these tricks & says to root them out, while Monogamism validates & even enshrines them as PROOF of "real Love."

Sit down with him. Set the case out before him: here's how it's going to go. He understands ultimatums, & likely sees negotiation as a sign of weakness, a chance to wedge in with one "yes, but" after another.

So, the final choice is his: "Here's my life, & here's how it will play out in the foreseeable future. You can make effort to fit in with that, or not. My life is demanding, & I largely like how it's going, & I don't have the spare time or energy to even think about changing it to suit you. You can join me on this adventure, maybe even eventually join us, but I need to move along. How important am I -- as a person, an individual -- to you?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top